Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Adam Williamson]

On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 05:43 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:

> > and no, glxgears is not a benchmark!
> 
> Indeed, glxgears really sucks as as a benchmark, Phoronix's benchmark suite
> (as imperfect as it is) is definitely more useful.

I keep meaning to file a feature request for glxgears - remove the FPS
display...if it's not a benchmark, let's not make it look like one.

-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Jeff Spaleta]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> I believe we should praise Phoronix for their work, even if we do not
> agree with their methodology.

I can't judge the work, until a methodology is adequately communicated.

-jef

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Kevin Kofler]

Gilboa Davara wrote:
> Might I remind everyone here that Phoronix was the first to offer a
> comprehensive benchmark suite to the OSS world.

On the other hand, they actively hurt Free Software by continuously
providing free advertising for the latest and "greatest" graphics hardware
with only proprietary drivers (at least for OpenGL), of course benchmarked
with the proprietary drivers and touting their features, while focusing
very little on Free drivers. There's the occasional article about Free
drivers, but even those are sometimes mixed articles like "news from ATI"
where it talks partly about the Free drivers and partly about
fglrx/Catalyst, and they regularly contain statements like "While there has
been a lot of great news this week surrounding the open-source ATI graphics
stack on Linux, there is still a fair amount of work left and this work is
not immediately the miracle driver for ATI Radeon customers." which promote
proprietary driver use. And most importantly, there are also few to no
benchmarks with Free drivers. I'd really like comparative benchmarks of
graphics cards using exclusively Free drivers so I can choose the fastest
of those. (I only know of one site doing such a benchmark and they use
glxgears as their "benchmark", so I don't trust their results at all.)

> and no, glxgears is not a benchmark!

Indeed, glxgears really sucks as as a benchmark, Phoronix's benchmark suite
(as imperfect as it is) is definitely more useful.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Gilboa Davara]

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:05 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 04:33 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> 
> > You don't like Phoronix' benchmark? Why? What should they have done
> > differently? Have you ever contacted Phoronix (E.g. Using their forums)
> > and tried to resolve these issues? Did they refuse?
> 
> They should use distribution-compiled binaries - or at least record and
> explain the fact that they don't, and check whether there are
> significant differences between the compiled binaries they use on each
> distro.

Up until 30 minutes ago, I was unaware of the fact that they use
test-suite compiled binaries.
Though I'd imagine that in Phoronix' view, having (far) different
compile options in the distribution supplied binaries might generate
invalid results. (Due to missing features, non-standard optimization,
etc)

Of-cause, the best solution would have been to test -both- versions -
read: Phoronix-compiled binaries next to distribution supplied binaries
This should generate far cleaner (and far more interesting) results.

> And when they observe anomalies, they should try and do some
> kind of research to confirm the result and figure out _why_, not just
> note the fact of the anomaly.

I fear that you're expecting far too much from popular website.
I'd rather see an open dialog between Phoronix and the different
distributions an in effort to gain usable test-data out of their
benchmarks.

> Multiple people have pointed this out to them in the past, but they
> haven't really made a concerted effort to change.

Has anyone attempted to start an open dialog with them using their
forums? [1].
At least the past, Micheal (Phoronix founder) was very responsive.

> I have a kind of
> love/hate relationship with Phoronix - they're a popular site and do
> some really good stuff, but they also make a lot of frustratingly lazy
> mistakes and shorthand contractions in many articles.

I believe we should praise Phoronix for their work, even if we do not
agree with their methodology.
As I said in my previous post, Phoronix completely changed the landscape
of OSS websites and OSS benchmarking.

- Gilboa
[1] http://www.phoronix.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=49


-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Gilboa Davara]

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:08 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 04:33 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> 
> > Kevin,
> > 
> > I must admit that I didn't expect such childish reaction from someone
> > like you.
> 
> BTW, I suspect that Kevin's position has a lot to do with the response
> KDE 4 got in the press...which is understandable.
> 

Being a KDE(-redhat) user, I'm well aware of Kevin's contribution to
Fedora / KDE / etc, hence my (somewhat harsh) reaction to his OP.

- Gilboa

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Rahul
Sundaram wrote:
> On 06/12/2009 06:42 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote:
>
>> It's almost certainly attributable to the default install using audit.
>> Roland and various others have done a lot of work improving things, but
>> there is always going to be a per-syscall overhead to this kind of
>> thing. A few extra usec a syscall adds up after a few hundred thousand
>> calls...
>
> Is there a benefit to running audit by default? Is it worth the cost?

What percentage of users do you think need even a small fraction of
the raw http transaction rate fedora can provide?

Obviously people do run a lot of CPU heavy CGIs, but since those
generally spend time processing rather than just making syscalls they
won't be as impacted as this.

Anyone needing to handle thousands of small HTTP transactions
per-second is doing something fairly specialized.  They should be
quite capable of performing whatever performance tweaks are required.

For everyone else, and even many of the high performance shops, even a
modest security gain is 'worth the cost' of a pretty substantial loss
in peak http request rate. Even for small users the 'cost' of dealing
with even one security breach in, say, 10 years would easily pay for a
second CPU in the few cases where serving thousands of requests per
second is material.

Obviously you want to extract as much performance as possible, and
don't want to take a loss for no gain.  But if after fixing any bugs
Fedora is slower because of a security feature then that needs to be
touted as a *benefit* of fedora. From a marketing perspective people
are more likely to believe advantages when you couple them with a
negative in any case:

"Furthermore, Fedora is more secure than other alternatives. Features
like X, Y, and Z make Fedora robust against even unforeseen attacks.
These features do result in a performance hit, for example 5,000 HTTP
requests per second vs 10,000, the impact is negligible on normal
workloads. Since some of the worlds largest websites only do 60,000
req/sec[1] (and have hundreds of servers), we think your time and
security should take precedence. Of course, these security features
can be disabled if your requirements dictate."

[1] http://www.nedworks.org/~mark/reqstats/reqstats-daily.png

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Adam Williamson]

On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 04:33 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote:

> Kevin,
> 
> I must admit that I didn't expect such childish reaction from someone
> like you.

BTW, I suspect that Kevin's position has a lot to do with the response
KDE 4 got in the press...which is understandable.

-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 17:25 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:55:56PM +1000, Eric Springer wrote:
> > I agree with the sentiment that phoronix reviews are lazy, poor, etc
> > -- but that doesn't mean nothing is revealed by them. Especially
> > considering how many people will use these benchmarks to make
> > conclusions about Fedora, we should make sure it presents as best as
> > it can. So I think it is important to establish why our apache
> > result were so poor and what can be done to fix it.
> 
> "Our" Apache results on the Phoronix tests, AIUI, are from an Apache
> they compiled, which is not what most people are going to use.
> There's also no mention of whether they mitigated the way results
> would have changed from our use of SELinux.

However, back a few posts, someone tested with the Fedora packaged
apache and reproduced the results - same result as Phoronix got, it was
slow. The current thread thinking is that audit is the cause of this.

-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Adam Williamson]

On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 04:33 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote:

> You don't like Phoronix' benchmark? Why? What should they have done
> differently? Have you ever contacted Phoronix (E.g. Using their forums)
> and tried to resolve these issues? Did they refuse?

They should use distribution-compiled binaries - or at least record and
explain the fact that they don't, and check whether there are
significant differences between the compiled binaries they use on each
distro. And when they observe anomalies, they should try and do some
kind of research to confirm the result and figure out _why_, not just
note the fact of the anomaly.

Multiple people have pointed this out to them in the past, but they
haven't really made a concerted effort to change. I have a kind of
love/hate relationship with Phoronix - they're a popular site and do
some really good stuff, but they also make a lot of frustratingly lazy
mistakes and shorthand contractions in many articles.

-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Adam Williamson]

On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 00:47 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:

> > I know its a pipe dream...the laypress taking a proactive interest in
> > seeing problems resolved instead of just talking about them.
> 
> I don't think it's ever going to happen. The laypress should just die,
> people need to go directly to the developers to get actual information.

Right, because developers are legendarily happy to spend their days
painstakingly explaining things to people with little clue. ;)

Seriously, I agree with many of your complaints about 'the
press' (especially the general interest tech press) when it comes to
'reviewing distributions', but I find it worthwhile to spend time wading
through the acres of reviews, because there is the occasional nugget of
useful feedback in there if you look hard enough, and if you spend some
time developing a relationship with the people who write the reviews,
you can a) get more useful information out of them to feed to developers
in a proper fashion, and b) subtly influence them towards producing
slightly nicer reviews in future, by making sure they have useful
information available and understand how certain things work when
they're writing their reviews. I've found quite a lot of reviewers are
actually quite smart and savvy guys (and even file bug reports - yes,
it's true!), but they're often working to word limits and writing for
audiences (and clueless editors...), and a detailed explanation of
complex issues doesn't play well in that context.

Of course, that's something that should more be done by
community/pr-focused people, not developers, probably. Developers have
more immediately valuable things to spend their time on, for which their
expertise is obviously much better suited. Which is all as it should be.
I would agree developers shouldn't spend too much time reading crappily
written reviews :) you guys have better things to do.

-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Gilboa Davara]

On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 04:33 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 15:24 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Eric Springer wrote:
> > > Especially  considering how many people will use these benchmarks to make
> > > conclusions about Fedora, we should make sure it presents as best as it
> > > can.
> > 
> > I think we should rather do an informative press campaign on the lines
> > of "Why Phoronix benchmarks are utter bullsh*t".
> > 
> > Kevin Kofler
> > 
> 
> Kevin,
> 
> I must admit that I didn't expect such childish reaction from someone
> like you.
> 
> You don't like Phoronix' benchmark? Why? What should they have done
> differently? Have you ever contacted Phoronix (E.g. Using their forums)
> and tried to resolve these issues? Did they refuse?
> Yes, encoding MP3 is rotten way to benchmark a file system, but some of
> these benchmarks -do- show anomalies, and simply ignoring these
> anomalies while FUD'ing the messenger (Phoronix in this case) is
> childish.
> 
> Might I remind everyone here that Phoronix was the first to offer a
> comprehensive benchmark suite to the OSS world. (Google back to 5-10
> years ago and you'll see an assortment of half-backed benchmarks that
> never really worked... and no, glxgears is not a benchmark!)
> Instead of throwing mud at Phoronix, we (as in, all the people that have
> grievances with this benchmark suite) -should- concentrate in trying
> help Phoronix improve their benchmarking suite.
> 
> - Gilboa
> 

I apologize in advance, for the overly harsh language. (Not specifically
directed at you, Kevin).

- Gilboa

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Gilboa Davara]

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 15:24 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Eric Springer wrote:
> > Especially  considering how many people will use these benchmarks to make
> > conclusions about Fedora, we should make sure it presents as best as it
> > can.
> 
> I think we should rather do an informative press campaign on the lines
> of "Why Phoronix benchmarks are utter bullsh*t".
> 
> Kevin Kofler
> 

Kevin,

I must admit that I didn't expect such childish reaction from someone
like you.

You don't like Phoronix' benchmark? Why? What should they have done
differently? Have you ever contacted Phoronix (E.g. Using their forums)
and tried to resolve these issues? Did they refuse?
Yes, encoding MP3 is rotten way to benchmark a file system, but some of
these benchmarks -do- show anomalies, and simply ignoring these
anomalies while FUD'ing the messenger (Phoronix in this case) is
childish.

Might I remind everyone here that Phoronix was the first to offer a
comprehensive benchmark suite to the OSS world. (Google back to 5-10
years ago and you'll see an assortment of half-backed benchmarks that
never really worked... and no, glxgears is not a benchmark!)
Instead of throwing mud at Phoronix, we (as in, all the people that have
grievances with this benchmark suite) -should- concentrate in trying
help Phoronix improve their benchmarking suite.

- Gilboa


-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: mount shows dm-* instead og dev/mapper/*

[Laurent Jacquot]

Hello,
I forgot to give my conf.
I run a fully updated fedora 10

[r...@jack ~]# uname -a
Linux jack.lutty.net 2.6.27.24-170.2.68.fc10.i686 #1 SMP Wed May 20
23:10:16 EDT 2009 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linu

If nobody has a clue about that, I will bug Zilla, probably under
device-mapper-1.02.27-7.fc10.i386

regards,
laurent


Le jeudi 11 juin 2009 à 23:32 +0200, Laurent Jacquot a écrit :
> Hello,
> I recently upgraded my raid array from 4 to 5 disks,
> and mount no longer shows lv names but is /dev/dm-* style instead.
> My setup is lvm on softraid
> 
> blkid, cat /proc/mounts, df, etc.. are all affected
> 
> How can I recover the normal behavior? Is it really caused by my
> upgrade?
> I recreated /etc/blkid, /etc/lvm/.cache.
> I straced blkid (with no cache): it reads directly the data
> from /proc/partitions.
> 
> cat /proc/partitions shows (edited for simplicity)
> major minor  #blocks  name
> 
>8 0  390711384 sda
>8 11020096 sda1
>816  390711384 sdb
>8171020096 sdb1
>832  195360984 sdc
>833  1 sdc1
>848  195360984 sdd
>849  1 sdd1
>864  976762584 sde
>865  1 sde1
>9 1   78171648 md1
>  253 02064384 dm-0
>  253 12064384 dm-1
>  253 2   10485760 dm-2
>  253 3   12484608 dm-3
>  253 44194304 dm-4
>9 2   78171904 md2
>9 01020032 md0
>9 3   78171904 md3
>  253 5  136314880 dm-5
>  253 6   62914560 dm-6
>  253 7   37748736 dm-7
>  253 8   31457280 dm-8
>  253 9   20971520 dm-9
> 
> 
> Should I file a bug? And if so, to which component
> 
> example of output:
>  FilesystemSize  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
>  /dev/dm-0 2.0G  505M  1.4G  27% /
>  /dev/md0  981M   40M  891M   5% /boot
>  /dev/dm-2 9.9G  5.8G  3.7G  62% /usr
>  /dev/dm-1 2.0G   38M  1.9G   2% /tmp
>  /dev/dm-3  12G  994M   11G   9% /var
>  /dev/dm-16 20G   12G  6.8G  64% /var/www/html
>  /dev/dm-15 36G  3.6G   32G  11% /home
>  /dev/dm-17 60G   38G   19G  67% /home/alex/Images
>  /dev/dm-18 20G   15G  3.9G  80% /home/alex/Mp3
>  /dev/dm-19 25G   21G  2.5G  90% /home/alex/vmware
>  /dev/dm-11 20G   13G  6.7G  65% /backup/www
>  /dev/dm-7  36G  3.6G   31G  11% /backup/home
>  /dev/dm-6  60G   38G   19G  68% /backup/Images
>  /dev/dm-9  20G   15G  3.8G  81% /backup/Mp3
>  /dev/dm-10 25G  173M   24G   1% /backup/vmware
> 
> instead of
> FilesystemSize  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
>  /dev/mapper/rootvg-rootlv
>2.0G  505M  1.4G  27% /
>  /dev/md0  981M   40M  891M   5% /boot
>  /dev/mapper/rootvg-usrlv
>9.9G  5.8G  3.7G  62% /usr
>  /dev/mapper/rootvg-tmplv
>2.0G   38M  1.9G   2% /tmp
>  /dev/mapper/rootvg-varlv
> 12G  936M   11G   9% /var
>  /dev/mapper/datavg-wwwlv
> 20G   12G  6.8G  64% /var/www/html
>  /dev/mapper/datavg-homelv
> 36G  3.5G   32G  10% /home
>  /dev/mapper/datavg-Imageslv
> 60G   38G   19G  67% /home/alex/Images
>  /dev/mapper/datavg-mp3lv
> 20G   15G  3.9G  80% /home/alex/Mp3
>  /dev/mapper/datavg-vmwarelv
> 25G   21G  3.4G  86% /home/alex/vmware
>  /dev/mapper/sauv2vg-mp3lv
> 20G   15G  3.8G  81% /backup/Mp3
> 
> Thank you in advance,
> Laurent
> 
> 


-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Christoph Höger]

> I don't think it's ever going to happen. The laypress should just die,
> people need to go directly to the developers to get actual information.

Wow. Cool statement. Next time I wonder if my algorithm actually does
work in O(n) I am not going to read books or papers but ask turing
himself.
You should know that a _normal_ person cannot simply ask thousands of
developers for reasons to use their software. That's why there are
media. They simplify things because readers ask for simplification. You
can hate them, but you'll always need them. 
So live with them!




signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

EPEL Bug Day

[Michael Stahnke]

The EPEL SIG team is asking for your participation at the first EPEL
Bug Day.  Please step up and help make EPEL a successful supplement to
Enterprise Linux.


When:  July 11, 2009 00:00 UTC - 23:59 UTC.

Goal:  Squash (close) as many bugs as possible with proper solutions.


More Information:
*   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL_Bug_Day_July_2009
Current Bug List
*   http://tr.im/epelbugs


We'll send out some more information when it becomes available.

Thanks for your help,
stahnma

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Kevin Kofler]

Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> But the laypress can't seem to be bothered to actually be a part of the
> development processes which would actually drive solutions to problems..

Because that'd require them to actually USE the product for a nontrivial
amount of time, so that they can give feedback about improvements or
regressions, not just install them, run some automated benchmark suite,
write a bullsh*t article about the results and then reformat the disk with
something different (which is what they're doing now). Reviews from the
press are just as useless as reviews from some random distrohopper (which
also pollute the blogosphere), because that's pretty much what those
journalists are. The real problem is that people believe what the laypress
writes, be it misinformation due to lack of research or understanding of
the field, outdated information, worthless benchmarks or "reviews" full
of "problems" which are mostly of the PEBKAC type and of whining about
actual bugs without any hint at the details required to actually fix them
nor any attempt to report them to the correct place (developers, not
readers).

> I know its a pipe dream...the laypress taking a proactive interest in
> seeing problems resolved instead of just talking about them.

I don't think it's ever going to happen. The laypress should just die,
people need to go directly to the developers to get actual information.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

[Lennart Poettering]

On Fri, 12.06.09 23:27, Bastien Nocera (bnoc...@redhat.com) wrote:

> 
> On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 23:58 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Fri, 12.06.09 22:17, Bastien Nocera (bnoc...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > 
> > > > > No, there's no service activation support. Would it be useful?
> > > > 
> > > > I think it would. Seems to me as if some of the BT functionality
> > > > (org.bluez.Manager, ...) might be useful even without having hw
> > > > plugged in.
> > > 
> > > All the API in doc/manager-api.txt shows that org.bluez.Manager's sole
> > > purpose is to tell you about available Adapters, and enumerate them.
> > > It's useless without an adapter plugged in.
> > 
> > Hmm, but what about the "any" object which provides org.bluez.Service?
> 
> What would you use that for? Check for a particular service (such as the
> audiosink, etc.) being available? Do you do something special when that
> happens? Wouldn't the devices just be invisible to PA in that case?

I was more thinking of installing some SDP data or so. Not that I'd
have any particular need for that right now, but that's what the API
is for afaiu.

> If we wanted to add support for dbus activation, we'd also need to
> implement a way to close ourselves if no dbus connection were made in a
> certain amount of time.

Yes, you'd have to count both clients and BT adapters, then.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart PoetteringRed Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/   GnuPG 0x1A015CC4

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

[Bastien Nocera]

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 23:58 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fri, 12.06.09 22:17, Bastien Nocera (bnoc...@redhat.com) wrote:
> 
> > > > No, there's no service activation support. Would it be useful?
> > > 
> > > I think it would. Seems to me as if some of the BT functionality
> > > (org.bluez.Manager, ...) might be useful even without having hw
> > > plugged in.
> > 
> > All the API in doc/manager-api.txt shows that org.bluez.Manager's sole
> > purpose is to tell you about available Adapters, and enumerate them.
> > It's useless without an adapter plugged in.
> 
> Hmm, but what about the "any" object which provides org.bluez.Service?

What would you use that for? Check for a particular service (such as the
audiosink, etc.) being available? Do you do something special when that
happens? Wouldn't the devices just be invisible to PA in that case?

If we wanted to add support for dbus activation, we'd also need to
implement a way to close ourselves if no dbus connection were made in a
certain amount of time.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Strange /etc/fedora-release and smolt help

[Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)]

> I'm trying to figure out whats going on here so I'm off to the list.
>
> Smolts.org is reporting people checking in with both:
>
> "Fedora 11 Leonidas"
>
> and
>
> "Fedora release 11 (Leonidas)"
>
> Can anyone with F11 installed look at what is in their /etc/fedora-release
> and tell me which one you have, and how you installed?  Also what version
> of fedora-release you have.


$ cat /etc/fedora-release
Fedora release 11 (Leonidas)

# smoltSendProfile
UUID: 8e71bd57-f8f2-4793-b68b-99bfee6f3aa2
SE: Fedora release 11 (Leonidas)
...

# rpm -q fedora-release
fedora-release-11-1.noarch

I installed it from Snapshot live CD, then updated.


--

Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

[Lennart Poettering]

On Fri, 12.06.09 22:17, Bastien Nocera (bnoc...@redhat.com) wrote:

> > > No, there's no service activation support. Would it be useful?
> > 
> > I think it would. Seems to me as if some of the BT functionality
> > (org.bluez.Manager, ...) might be useful even without having hw
> > plugged in.
> 
> All the API in doc/manager-api.txt shows that org.bluez.Manager's sole
> purpose is to tell you about available Adapters, and enumerate them.
> It's useless without an adapter plugged in.

Hmm, but what about the "any" object which provides org.bluez.Service?

Lennart

-- 
Lennart PoetteringRed Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/   GnuPG 0x1A015CC4

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Chris Ball]

Hi,

   > "Our" Apache results on the Phoronix tests, AIUI, are from an
   > Apache they compiled, which is not what most people are going to
   > use.

Do similar results occur when you compare the installed Apaches instead,
or does the discrepancy go away?

   > There's also no mention of whether they mitigated the way results
   > would have changed from our use of SELinux.

Why would you want to mitigate that, in a comparison of distributions
out-of-the-box?  (And, what would "mitigate" mean here?)

   > Just another couple of gripes here, but I do agree with a
   > previous poster that a well-thought out series of benchmarks and
   > an explanation of their meaning would be far preferable to what
   > Phoronix publishes.

I guess I feel pretty consequentialist about this -- if the discrepancy
they measured doesn't actually exist in a form that our users might
hit, then they were wrong to post a badly-designed benchmark.

If it does exist, on the other hand, they've done us a large favour
by pointing out something we didn't know about (which might even be a
large regression from F10), and I'd feel that we should (a) thank them
and encourage them to run benchmarks more often, (b) fix our bug, and
(c) tell them how to improve their benchmarks, with patches, so that
it doesn't take so long to work out whether there's a real problem
next time.

The question is, which is it?

- Chris.
-- 
Chris Ball   

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Strange /etc/fedora-release and smolt help

[Julian Aloofi]

Here I have Fedora release 11 (Leonidas)
Installed via Gnome Live CD.


signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Paul W. Frields]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:55:56PM +1000, Eric Springer wrote:
> I agree with the sentiment that phoronix reviews are lazy, poor, etc
> -- but that doesn't mean nothing is revealed by them. Especially
> considering how many people will use these benchmarks to make
> conclusions about Fedora, we should make sure it presents as best as
> it can. So I think it is important to establish why our apache
> result were so poor and what can be done to fix it.

"Our" Apache results on the Phoronix tests, AIUI, are from an Apache
they compiled, which is not what most people are going to use.
There's also no mention of whether they mitigated the way results
would have changed from our use of SELinux.

Just another couple of gripes here, but I do agree with a previous
poster that a well-thought out series of benchmarks and an explanation
of their meaning would be far preferable to what Phoronix publishes.

As a side note, (almost) anyone can take your blood and put it in a
centrifuge, but it takes a specialist to tell you what the results
mean for your health. ;-)

-- 
Paul W. Frieldshttp://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
  irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

[drago01]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Robert
Nichols wrote:
> Bastien Nocera wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 20:44 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmm, will bluetoothd also be started via bus activation? If so, it
>>> wuld probably make sense to issue a StartByName D-Bus request from the
>>> udev rule and let dbus handle all the ordering/synchronization issues
>>> with starting up bluetoothd.
>>
>> No, there's no service activation support. Would it be useful?
>
> It would be nice to start bluetoothd automatically when I plug in
> my USB Bluetooth adapter (IOgear GBU421, 0a5c:2101 Broadcom Corp.).

err... thats what the whole thing is about ;)

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

[Bastien Nocera]

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 21:52 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fri, 12.06.09 20:10, Bastien Nocera (bnoc...@redhat.com) wrote:
> 
> > > This could be fixed by first releasing the service name synchronously,
> > > then processing all queued requests and only then closing/exiting.
> > > 
> > > Hmm, will bluetoothd also be started via bus activation? If so, it
> > > wuld probably make sense to issue a StartByName D-Bus request from the
> > > udev rule and let dbus handle all the ordering/synchronization issues
> > > with starting up bluetoothd.
> > 
> > No, there's no service activation support. Would it be useful?
> 
> I think it would. Seems to me as if some of the BT functionality
> (org.bluez.Manager, ...) might be useful even without having hw
> plugged in.

All the API in doc/manager-api.txt shows that org.bluez.Manager's sole
purpose is to tell you about available Adapters, and enumerate them.
It's useless without an adapter plugged in.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

[Robert Nichols]

Bastien Nocera wrote:

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 20:44 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:

Hmm, will bluetoothd also be started via bus activation? If so, it
wuld probably make sense to issue a StartByName D-Bus request from the
udev rule and let dbus handle all the ordering/synchronization issues
with starting up bluetoothd.


No, there's no service activation support. Would it be useful?


It would be nice to start bluetoothd automatically when I plug in
my USB Bluetooth adapter (IOgear GBU421, 0a5c:2101 Broadcom Corp.).

--
Bob Nichols "NOSPAM" is really part of my email address.
Do NOT delete it.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

[Lennart Poettering]

On Fri, 12.06.09 20:10, Bastien Nocera (bnoc...@redhat.com) wrote:

> > This could be fixed by first releasing the service name synchronously,
> > then processing all queued requests and only then closing/exiting.
> > 
> > Hmm, will bluetoothd also be started via bus activation? If so, it
> > wuld probably make sense to issue a StartByName D-Bus request from the
> > udev rule and let dbus handle all the ordering/synchronization issues
> > with starting up bluetoothd.
> 
> No, there's no service activation support. Would it be useful?

I think it would. Seems to me as if some of the BT functionality
(org.bluez.Manager, ...) might be useful even without having hw
plugged in.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart PoetteringRed Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/   GnuPG 0x1A015CC4

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

[Bastien Nocera]

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 20:44 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fri, 12.06.09 19:26, Bastien Nocera (bnoc...@redhat.com) wrote:
> 
> > Every time there's an add action for a Bluetooth device, udev will run
> > "bluetoothd --udev".
> > 
> > bluetoothd will fail with an error if D-Bus isn't started (on bootup),
> > and the udev coldplug (done in udev-post) will run the rule again.
> > 
> > bluetoothd will silently fail when it's already running.
> > 
> > bluetoothd will exit itself after 30 seconds when no adapters are
> > present. There's a potential race if the udev add event happens in
> > between the time the time the running bluetoothd reliquinshes its D-Bus
> > service, and the new one starts up.
> 
> This could be fixed by first releasing the service name synchronously,
> then processing all queued requests and only then closing/exiting.
> 
> Hmm, will bluetoothd also be started via bus activation? If so, it
> wuld probably make sense to issue a StartByName D-Bus request from the
> udev rule and let dbus handle all the ordering/synchronization issues
> with starting up bluetoothd.

No, there's no service activation support. Would it be useful?

> I know at least one application (PA) that wouldn't reconnect to coming
> and going bluetoothd's, that's why I am asking.

Which is why we're doing it early in F-12. At least obex-data-server is
broken as well.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

[Bastien Nocera]

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:39 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> >
> > bluetoothd will exit itself after 30 seconds when no adapters are
> > present. There's a potential race if the udev add event happens in
> > between the time the time the running bluetoothd reliquinshes its D-Bus
> > service, and the new one starts up.
> 
> We should support this I think.  I've added a bug here:
> 
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22258

We don't use D-Bus for that in-flight message.

The message is in-flight between the kernel and bluetoothd via netlink.

   1. running bluetoothd   2. adapter insertion

- last bt adapter gets removed
- timeout kicks in
   30 sec...
- we start processing shutdown
   - udev gets event from the kernel
   - udev rule is processed
   - bluetoothd is run with --udev
   - bluetoothd exits because the
 service is already running
- relinquish the D-Bus service
- bluetoothd exits

Something like that.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

[Bastien Nocera]

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 23:59 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 06/12/2009 11:35 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > Heya,
> > 
> > I've added a patch to bluetoothd in F-12 to support being started via
> > udev, on-demand. bluetoothd will now only start up when you have a
> > Bluetooth adapter plugged, and will exit 30 seconds after the last one
> > went away.
> 
> Can you add these details to
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_12_Beta_release_notes

Will do.

Cheers

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Problem with the fedorapeople.org website

[Ricky Zhou]

On 2009-06-12 08:46:48 PM, Patrick MONNERAT wrote:
> I did not change anything to my public_html path permissions.
> I can still access files in this directory, like
> http://monnerat.fedorapeople.org/php-captchaphp.spec
> I do not have a .htaccess file (neither did I yesterday!)
> I do not have an index.* file neither.
Strange, I'm not sure what happened either.  I just restarted apache,
which seemed to allow indexes again.  Please let us know if you see this
problem again.

Thanks,
Ricky


pgpVWUQYuPuP5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

[Kyle McMartin]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:26:34PM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > How does this actually work? At what stage of boot does udev attempt to
> > start bluetoothd?
> 
> Best explanation is here:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.bluez.kernel/2474
> 
> Every time there's an add action for a Bluetooth device, udev will run
> "bluetoothd --udev".
> 
> bluetoothd will fail with an error if D-Bus isn't started (on bootup),
> and the udev coldplug (done in udev-post) will run the rule again.

Ok, that's more or less what I expected.

> 
> bluetoothd will silently fail when it's already running.
> 
> bluetoothd will exit itself after 30 seconds when no adapters are
> present. There's a potential race if the udev add event happens in
> between the time the time the running bluetoothd reliquinshes its D-Bus
> service, and the new one starts up.
> 
> I don't think it's likely to cause problems in real life, unless the
> machine is so heavily bogged down that the time between the timeout
> kicking in and the close of the D-Bus service is long. But then again,
> udev might be bogged down as well.
> 

*nod*

> > One of my ideas(I guess?) for F-12 is to filter modules loaded at boot
> > by udev, and defer things that aren't needed for startup until either
> > idle, or they are needed. (Why do we need sound modules loaded before we
> > mount root rw? :)
> 
> Would that really make bootup faster, or you'd get to a rw filesystem
> faster?
> 

Almost certainly, but it's in the noise compared to deferred service
initialization... I have numbers from my LPC talk last year, but I'd
have to dig to find them.

> >  I've got a couple hacks from LPC last year I need to
> > polish and submit for cups to make it somewhat more sensible...
> 
> A quick scan tells me that a number of services should be disabled by
> default, and:
> 1) enabled explicitely by the user when they switch on the "network"
> service (iscsi, ntpd, rpcbind, etc.), and disable NetworkManager (and be
> enabled as required when NetworkManager gets a network interface up)

Yeah, a lot of these are 'interesting' cases though. For instance, why
do we need iscsid always, or nfsd if we have no exports configured, and
no fstab mounts... it could otherwise be on-demand.

Even so, we're doing really well on F-11...
http://fedorapeople.org/~kyle/minerva-f11-bootchart-2009-05-31.pdf
(dell mini 9 with the stock crud ssd. disk seeks kill kittens.)

> 2) the livesys script should remove itself (and livesys-late) from the
> initscripts if it is that it's been installed
> 3) smolt should probably be running from cron?
> 

I definitely agree.

> > Pardon my curiosity, this is a big step towards better boot up. Thanks
> > for doing this!
> 
> Cheers
> 

cheers, Kyle

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

FESCo meeting summary for 2009-06-12

[Jon Stanley]

Here's the minutes and IRC log of today's FESCo meeting

Minutes: 
http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/fedora-meeting/2009/fedora-meeting.2009-06-12-17.01.html
Log: 
http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/fedora-meeting/2009/fedora-meeting.2009-06-12-17.01.log.html

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Problem with the fedorapeople.org website

[Patrick MONNERAT]

Hi list,

Yesterday, when I pointed my browser to
http://monnerat.fedorapeople.org/, I got a directory index. Today, the
output is:
 

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use
an ErrorDocument to handle the request.


I did not change anything to my public_html path permissions.
I can still access files in this directory, like
http://monnerat.fedorapeople.org/php-captchaphp.spec
I do not have a .htaccess file (neither did I yesterday!)
I do not have an index.* file neither.

What's wrong ? Did I missed something ?

Thanks in advance for help
Patrick

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

[Lennart Poettering]

On Fri, 12.06.09 19:26, Bastien Nocera (bnoc...@redhat.com) wrote:

> Every time there's an add action for a Bluetooth device, udev will run
> "bluetoothd --udev".
> 
> bluetoothd will fail with an error if D-Bus isn't started (on bootup),
> and the udev coldplug (done in udev-post) will run the rule again.
> 
> bluetoothd will silently fail when it's already running.
> 
> bluetoothd will exit itself after 30 seconds when no adapters are
> present. There's a potential race if the udev add event happens in
> between the time the time the running bluetoothd reliquinshes its D-Bus
> service, and the new one starts up.

This could be fixed by first releasing the service name synchronously,
then processing all queued requests and only then closing/exiting.

Hmm, will bluetoothd also be started via bus activation? If so, it
wuld probably make sense to issue a StartByName D-Bus request from the
udev rule and let dbus handle all the ordering/synchronization issues
with starting up bluetoothd.

I know at least one application (PA) that wouldn't reconnect to coming
and going bluetoothd's, that's why I am asking.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart PoetteringRed Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/   GnuPG 0x1A015CC4

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

[Colin Walters]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> bluetoothd will exit itself after 30 seconds when no adapters are
> present. There's a potential race if the udev add event happens in
> between the time the time the running bluetoothd reliquinshes its D-Bus
> service, and the new one starts up.

We should support this I think.  I've added a bug here:

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22258

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

[Rahul Sundaram]

On 06/12/2009 11:35 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> Heya,
> 
> I've added a patch to bluetoothd in F-12 to support being started via
> udev, on-demand. bluetoothd will now only start up when you have a
> Bluetooth adapter plugged, and will exit 30 seconds after the last one
> went away.

Can you add these details to

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_12_Beta_release_notes

Rahul

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

[drago01]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 20:20 +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:05:39PM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>> >> I've added a patch to bluetoothd in F-12 to support being started via
>> >> udev, on-demand. bluetoothd will now only start up when you have a
>> >> Bluetooth adapter plugged, and will exit 30 seconds after the last one
>> >> went away.
>> >>
>> >> The only purpose of the bluetooth initscript is now to switch HID proxy
>> >> adapters into Bluetooth mode (on Macs, and some Logitech and Dell
>> >> keyboard/mouse combos). That'll probably go away as well, and into udev.
>> >>
>> >> File bugs against bluez if you encounter any problems with bluetoothd
>> >> being in the wrong state (ie. started with no Bluetooth hardware, and
>> >> not running when you have Bluetooth hardware).
>> >>
>> >
>> > I've been hoping to find some time to do a big review of system startup
>> > for F-12, but haven't as yet found the time...
>> >
>> > How does this actually work? At what stage of boot does udev attempt to
>> > start bluetoothd?
>> >
>> > One of my ideas(I guess?) for F-12 is to filter modules loaded at boot
>> > by udev, and defer things that aren't needed for startup until either
>> > idle, or they are needed. (Why do we need sound modules loaded before we
>> > mount root rw? :) I've got a couple hacks from LPC last year I need to
>> > polish and submit for cups to make it somewhat more sensible...
>> >
>> > Pardon my curiosity, this is a big step towards better boot up. Thanks
>> > for doing this!
>> >
>> > cheers, Kyle
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484345
>
> Nope, that was the code that was in F-12 up until now, which I removed,
> and replace with a better way. There's no initscripts needed anymore.

Oh, nice.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

[Bastien Nocera]

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 20:20 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:05:39PM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> >> I've added a patch to bluetoothd in F-12 to support being started via
> >> udev, on-demand. bluetoothd will now only start up when you have a
> >> Bluetooth adapter plugged, and will exit 30 seconds after the last one
> >> went away.
> >>
> >> The only purpose of the bluetooth initscript is now to switch HID proxy
> >> adapters into Bluetooth mode (on Macs, and some Logitech and Dell
> >> keyboard/mouse combos). That'll probably go away as well, and into udev.
> >>
> >> File bugs against bluez if you encounter any problems with bluetoothd
> >> being in the wrong state (ie. started with no Bluetooth hardware, and
> >> not running when you have Bluetooth hardware).
> >>
> >
> > I've been hoping to find some time to do a big review of system startup
> > for F-12, but haven't as yet found the time...
> >
> > How does this actually work? At what stage of boot does udev attempt to
> > start bluetoothd?
> >
> > One of my ideas(I guess?) for F-12 is to filter modules loaded at boot
> > by udev, and defer things that aren't needed for startup until either
> > idle, or they are needed. (Why do we need sound modules loaded before we
> > mount root rw? :) I've got a couple hacks from LPC last year I need to
> > polish and submit for cups to make it somewhat more sensible...
> >
> > Pardon my curiosity, this is a big step towards better boot up. Thanks
> > for doing this!
> >
> > cheers, Kyle
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484345

Nope, that was the code that was in F-12 up until now, which I removed,
and replace with a better way. There's no initscripts needed anymore.

Cheers

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

[Bastien Nocera]

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:11 -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:05:39PM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > I've added a patch to bluetoothd in F-12 to support being started via
> > udev, on-demand. bluetoothd will now only start up when you have a
> > Bluetooth adapter plugged, and will exit 30 seconds after the last one
> > went away.
> > 
> > The only purpose of the bluetooth initscript is now to switch HID proxy
> > adapters into Bluetooth mode (on Macs, and some Logitech and Dell
> > keyboard/mouse combos). That'll probably go away as well, and into udev.
> > 
> > File bugs against bluez if you encounter any problems with bluetoothd
> > being in the wrong state (ie. started with no Bluetooth hardware, and
> > not running when you have Bluetooth hardware).
> > 
> 
> I've been hoping to find some time to do a big review of system startup
> for F-12, but haven't as yet found the time...
> 
> How does this actually work? At what stage of boot does udev attempt to
> start bluetoothd?

Best explanation is here:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.bluez.kernel/2474

Every time there's an add action for a Bluetooth device, udev will run
"bluetoothd --udev".

bluetoothd will fail with an error if D-Bus isn't started (on bootup),
and the udev coldplug (done in udev-post) will run the rule again.

bluetoothd will silently fail when it's already running.

bluetoothd will exit itself after 30 seconds when no adapters are
present. There's a potential race if the udev add event happens in
between the time the time the running bluetoothd reliquinshes its D-Bus
service, and the new one starts up.

I don't think it's likely to cause problems in real life, unless the
machine is so heavily bogged down that the time between the timeout
kicking in and the close of the D-Bus service is long. But then again,
udev might be bogged down as well.

> One of my ideas(I guess?) for F-12 is to filter modules loaded at boot
> by udev, and defer things that aren't needed for startup until either
> idle, or they are needed. (Why do we need sound modules loaded before we
> mount root rw? :)

Would that really make bootup faster, or you'd get to a rw filesystem
faster?

>  I've got a couple hacks from LPC last year I need to
> polish and submit for cups to make it somewhat more sensible...

A quick scan tells me that a number of services should be disabled by
default, and:
1) enabled explicitely by the user when they switch on the "network"
service (iscsi, ntpd, rpcbind, etc.), and disable NetworkManager (and be
enabled as required when NetworkManager gets a network interface up)
2) the livesys script should remove itself (and livesys-late) from the
initscripts if it is that it's been installed
3) smolt should probably be running from cron?

> Pardon my curiosity, this is a big step towards better boot up. Thanks
> for doing this!

Cheers

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

[drago01]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:05:39PM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>> I've added a patch to bluetoothd in F-12 to support being started via
>> udev, on-demand. bluetoothd will now only start up when you have a
>> Bluetooth adapter plugged, and will exit 30 seconds after the last one
>> went away.
>>
>> The only purpose of the bluetooth initscript is now to switch HID proxy
>> adapters into Bluetooth mode (on Macs, and some Logitech and Dell
>> keyboard/mouse combos). That'll probably go away as well, and into udev.
>>
>> File bugs against bluez if you encounter any problems with bluetoothd
>> being in the wrong state (ie. started with no Bluetooth hardware, and
>> not running when you have Bluetooth hardware).
>>
>
> I've been hoping to find some time to do a big review of system startup
> for F-12, but haven't as yet found the time...
>
> How does this actually work? At what stage of boot does udev attempt to
> start bluetoothd?
>
> One of my ideas(I guess?) for F-12 is to filter modules loaded at boot
> by udev, and defer things that aren't needed for startup until either
> idle, or they are needed. (Why do we need sound modules loaded before we
> mount root rw? :) I've got a couple hacks from LPC last year I need to
> polish and submit for cups to make it somewhat more sensible...
>
> Pardon my curiosity, this is a big step towards better boot up. Thanks
> for doing this!
>
> cheers, Kyle

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484345

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

[Kyle McMartin]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:05:39PM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> I've added a patch to bluetoothd in F-12 to support being started via
> udev, on-demand. bluetoothd will now only start up when you have a
> Bluetooth adapter plugged, and will exit 30 seconds after the last one
> went away.
> 
> The only purpose of the bluetooth initscript is now to switch HID proxy
> adapters into Bluetooth mode (on Macs, and some Logitech and Dell
> keyboard/mouse combos). That'll probably go away as well, and into udev.
> 
> File bugs against bluez if you encounter any problems with bluetoothd
> being in the wrong state (ie. started with no Bluetooth hardware, and
> not running when you have Bluetooth hardware).
> 

I've been hoping to find some time to do a big review of system startup
for F-12, but haven't as yet found the time...

How does this actually work? At what stage of boot does udev attempt to
start bluetoothd?

One of my ideas(I guess?) for F-12 is to filter modules loaded at boot
by udev, and defer things that aren't needed for startup until either
idle, or they are needed. (Why do we need sound modules loaded before we
mount root rw? :) I've got a couple hacks from LPC last year I need to
polish and submit for cups to make it somewhat more sensible...

Pardon my curiosity, this is a big step towards better boot up. Thanks
for doing this!

cheers, Kyle

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: How user could loose his "CLA done" status?

[Ricky Zhou]

On 2009-06-12 05:23:36 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> Hello All!
> There is a newbie fedora packager, whom I sponsored not so long time
> ago - he seems very active and enthusiastic, and almost every day he
> asks me some advice on his (still not included into Fedora) package.
> 
> Today, I was badly surprised to see that he lost his "CLA done" status
> - I asked him, what's happens? Maybe he is just gave up or this is
> (possibly) his technical issue? But he swears that he didn't do
> anything destructive with his account so far. The only suspicious
> issue, is that he has some troubles with firefox - it refuses to
> remember his login and password for Fedora  and he frequently uses
> "forgot my password" feature.
> 
> Can someone check the status of this issue (whether it's a user's
> mistake or infrastructure bug)? User - aleksey2005
Hi, spot might be a better person to ask about this, but if his CLA got
revoked, he should have received an email explaining why and how to fix
it.  Looking at his account, it looks like it is probably because he did
not give both a first and last name for the full name field in FAS.  If
he legitimately only has one name (I'm sure there have been many special
cases like this), let spot know and he'll make sure to let the CLA go
through.

Thanks,
Ricky


pgpFwssHXVfjc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

[Bastien Nocera]

Heya,

I've added a patch to bluetoothd in F-12 to support being started via
udev, on-demand. bluetoothd will now only start up when you have a
Bluetooth adapter plugged, and will exit 30 seconds after the last one
went away.

The only purpose of the bluetooth initscript is now to switch HID proxy
adapters into Bluetooth mode (on Macs, and some Logitech and Dell
keyboard/mouse combos). That'll probably go away as well, and into udev.

File bugs against bluez if you encounter any problems with bluetoothd
being in the wrong state (ie. started with no Bluetooth hardware, and
not running when you have Bluetooth hardware).

Cheers

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

[Jesse Keating]

On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 20:54 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > What is the status of the automatic signing server? I think we really
> 
> It exists.  We aren't using it yet because of quite a few factors.

Not quite true.  There exists code that allows people to be authorized
to sign content, without knowing the passphrase.  It doesn't yet
automate things, and it wasn't used for F11 due to when the code landed.
It's one of the things we'll be working on during the F12 cycle.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Casey Dahlin]

On 06/12/2009 12:44 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> I don't have a problem getting a bad grade. I do have a general
> problem with people who publish unexpected behavior regressions but
> don't actually use the open development process to drive feedback
> directly to developers.  If we deserve a black eye over it, fine I'll
> stand up and take my punches. But the laypress can't seem to be
> bothered to actually be a part of the development processes which
> would actually drive solutions to problems..and that bothers
> me..greatly.  For some reason, once you find yourself a soapbox to
> stand on, you immune to actually reporting problems in the established
> communication channels.
> 

You may or may not have misunderstood my point. I feel that attempting to 
protest any aspect of the benchmark without a lot of care paid to tone will 
lead to accusations of "oh Fedora's just mad because they're slow." That's not 
true, we're happy to have people test the distro, its just what it looks like.

> This is the sort of thing I would have love them to do at the alpha
> and beta release points...open bug tickets about..and if the issue is
> unsolved by release time..then so be it..just as long as they link to
> the bug ticket and the technical discussion on the ticket when they
> punch in the eye.  I know its a pipe dream...the laypress taking a
> proactive interest in seeing problems resolved instead of just talking
> about them.
> 

I think the press gets more flack than they deserve about this, simply because 
"the press" is a bit of a big, monolithic term thats easy to demonize. Let's 
look at it on another scale: should every person who ever blogs about a bad 
experience with fedora file bugs? Probably, but that also doesn't happen much.

Another part of it is a dated model of how to report on software. If they were 
benchmarking, say, Windows vs OSX, you wouldn't expect bug reports. They're 
just treating us the way they'd treat any other proprietary product. Press 
mentality just hasn't caught up to open source.

--CJD

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Strange /etc/fedora-release and smolt help

[Adam Miller]

Fedora release 11 (Leonidas) -> Xfce Live Installed on release day
from final spin release LiveCD

Fedora release 11 (Leonidas) -> KDE Live Installed on release day from
final release LiveCD




On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out whats going on here so I'm off to the list.
>
> Smolts.org is reporting people checking in with both:
>
> "Fedora 11 Leonidas"
>
> and
>
> "Fedora release 11 (Leonidas)"
>
> Can anyone with F11 installed look at what is in their /etc/fedora-release
> and tell me which one you have, and how you installed?  Also what version
> of fedora-release you have.
>
>        -Mike
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>



-- 
http://maxamillion.googlepages.com
-
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Plan for tomorrow's (20090612) FESCo meeting

[Jarod Wilson]

On Thursday 11 June 2009 17:04:03 Jon Stanley wrote:
> Here's a list of topics for tomorrow's FESCo meeting, taking place in
> #fedora-meeting on freenode at 17:00UTC.
> 
> 160   Announce EOL date for F-9
> 162   Milestone Adjustment Proposal
> 161   Proposal for fedora-release version-release naming for rawhide
> 
> For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket.  The
> report of the agenda items can be found at
> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9
> 
> If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to
> this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco,
> e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during
> the open floor.

Arch support in F12. During F11, we went from i386->i586, while there
was a lot of desire to go straight to i686. The sooner we can make a
go/no-go call if we're moving F12 to i686, the better... Not sure if
there is a formal feature page for this yet or not...

-- 
Jarod Wilson
ja...@redhat.com

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: rpmconf - tool to handle rpmnew and rpmsave files

[Frank Murphy]

On 12/06/09 17:00, Adam Williamson wrote:

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:30 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:

I've been tired for some time of watching rpmnew and rpmsave files. I've
been looking for some tool, but did not find any, so I wrote my own.

http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rpmconf/rpmconf

Before I spend more times on this script, I would like to hear your
opinion. Do you find it useful? Did it already exists and I miss it in
my search?






There is something similar in Fedora,
yum-plugin-merge-conf (not installed by default)

currently is supports vi(m)

Now if you could modify this to use Meld lets say:
meld-1.2.1-3.fc11.noarch : Visual diff and merge tool
there would be a gui version.


But, what I would say is,
if you want go ahead, that is the beauty of F\l\OSS
*choice*

Maybe with your also Meld as a frontend?

Frank

--
jabber | msn | google-talk | skype: frankly3d
(Skype will be scrapped 1st July 2009)
http://www.frankly3d.com
Mailing-List Reply to: Mailing-List

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Strange /etc/fedora-release and smolt help

[Michael Cronenworth]

Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> 
> F10 to F11 system using preupgrade here.
> 
> $ cat /etc/fedora-release
> Fedora release 11 (Leonidas)
> $ rpm -q fedora-release
> fedora-release-11-1.noarch
> 

When I brought up smolt the OS is "Fedora 11 Leonidas" so is this a
smolt issue?

It seems smolt is under stress at the moment. It's difficult to access
my smolt page (had to refresh 3 times).

[1] http://www.smolts.org/show?uuid=pub_484ec5f5-9136-44ba-b878-7d7af96160f2

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Fedora rawhide rebuild in mock status 2009-06-08 x86_64

[Ville Skyttä]

On Thursday 11 June 2009, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>Le mercredi 10 juin 2009 à 17:06 -0500, Matt Domsch a écrit :
> > Fedora Rawhide-in-Mock Build Results for x86_64
> > using the first rawhide of the Fedora 12 development cycle, cut on
> > 6/8/2008.
> >
> > Full logs at http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/
> >
> > Of those expected to have worked...
> > Without a bug filed: 313
> > --
> >
> > levien-inconsolata-fonts-1.01-3.fc11 (build/make) kevin
>
> ...
>
> This one and probably other font packages use a pattern like
>
> %_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.ttf
> %doc *.pdf
>
> For some reason the %_font_pkg macro call is eating the EOL, so "%doc
> *.pdf" ends up at the end of the last line of the macro output and not
> on the next line.
>
> This is probably a bug or quirk in rpm.

Untested, but it might not be an entirely new thing - I remember seeing 
various issues like that with multiline macro definitions that do not have 
%{nil} as their last line and the fontpackages macros don't appear to have 
that.  IIRC one such thing I fixed (and probably also initially broke) is 
%jpackage_script in /etc/rpm/macros.jpackage.  See other examples in 
/usr/lib/rpm/{,redhat}/macros.


-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Strange /etc/fedora-release and smolt help

[Michael Cronenworth]

Mike McGrath wrote:
> 
> Can anyone with F11 installed look at what is in their /etc/fedora-release
> and tell me which one you have, and how you installed?  Also what version
> of fedora-release you have.
> 

F10 to F11 system using preupgrade here.

$ cat /etc/fedora-release
Fedora release 11 (Leonidas)
$ rpm -q fedora-release
fedora-release-11-1.noarch

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Strange /etc/fedora-release and smolt help

[sankarshan]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:

> Can anyone with F11 installed look at what is in their /etc/fedora-release
> and tell me which one you have, and how you installed?  Also what version
> of fedora-release you have.

$ cat /etc/fedora-release
Fedora release 11 (Leonidas)

Installed via LiveUSB

$ rpm -qa | grep fedora-release
fedora-release-notes-11.0.0-2.fc11.noarch
fedora-release-11-1.noarch



-- 
http://www.gutenberg.net - Fine literature digitally re-published
http://www.plos.org - Public Library of Science
http://www.creativecommons.org - Flexible copyright for creative work

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Jeff Spaleta]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> Because they gave us a bad grade and now we're butthurt and we're taking our 
> ball and going home so there? Because that's what everyone's going to hear, 
> even if its not what we say.

What I have a problem with is the lack of information about
methodology that would allow me to interpret the result in comparison
to other results using slightly different methodology..

I don't have a problem getting a bad grade. I do have a general
problem with people who publish unexpected behavior regressions but
don't actually use the open development process to drive feedback
directly to developers.  If we deserve a black eye over it, fine I'll
stand up and take my punches. But the laypress can't seem to be
bothered to actually be a part of the development processes which
would actually drive solutions to problems..and that bothers
me..greatly.  For some reason, once you find yourself a soapbox to
stand on, you immune to actually reporting problems in the established
communication channels.

This is the sort of thing I would have love them to do at the alpha
and beta release points...open bug tickets about..and if the issue is
unsolved by release time..then so be it..just as long as they link to
the bug ticket and the technical discussion on the ticket when they
punch in the eye.  I know its a pipe dream...the laypress taking a
proactive interest in seeing problems resolved instead of just talking
about them.


-jef

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Strange /etc/fedora-release and smolt help

[Mike McGrath]

I'm trying to figure out whats going on here so I'm off to the list.

Smolts.org is reporting people checking in with both:

"Fedora 11 Leonidas"

and

"Fedora release 11 (Leonidas)"

Can anyone with F11 installed look at what is in their /etc/fedora-release
and tell me which one you have, and how you installed?  Also what version
of fedora-release you have.

-Mike

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Joe Nall]

On Jun 12, 2009, at 11:11 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:


On 06/12/2009 09:35 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:


put selinux=0 audit=0 in kernel line at /boot/grub/grub.conf
then reboot

$ dmesg  | egrep -i "audit|selinux"
Kernel command line: ro  
root=UUID=c99c0f86-6ebc-4e0f-91ee-4a6ae7ae6aa9 vga=791 selinux=0  
audit=0

audit: disabled (until reboot)
SELinux:  Disabled at boot.


See what Torvalds says about audit and fedora kernel:



Turning off audit doesn't turn off SELinux. Linus is wrong about that.


I think he was referring to building the kernel w/o audit.

joe


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Rahul Sundaram]

On 06/12/2009 09:35 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:

> put selinux=0 audit=0 in kernel line at /boot/grub/grub.conf
> then reboot
> 
> $ dmesg  | egrep -i "audit|selinux"
> Kernel command line: ro root=UUID=c99c0f86-6ebc-4e0f-91ee-4a6ae7ae6aa9 
> vga=791 selinux=0 audit=0
> audit: disabled (until reboot)
> SELinux:  Disabled at boot.
> 
> 
> See what Torvalds says about audit and fedora kernel:
> 

Turning off audit doesn't turn off SELinux. Linus is wrong about that.

Rahul

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Xose Vazquez Perez]

Adam Williamson wrote:

> On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:01 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Is there a benefit to running audit by default? Is it worth the cost?
> 
> ...and how does one disable it, so the people doing the benchmarks can
> confirm that's the cause?

put selinux=0 audit=0 in kernel line at /boot/grub/grub.conf
then reboot

$ dmesg  | egrep -i "audit|selinux"
Kernel command line: ro root=UUID=c99c0f86-6ebc-4e0f-91ee-4a6ae7ae6aa9 vga=791 
selinux=0 audit=0
audit: disabled (until reboot)
SELinux:  Disabled at boot.


See what Torvalds says about audit and fedora kernel:


-- 
Polycommander, Erkowit, Urquiola, Andros Patria, Cason, Aegean Sea, Prestige, 
...

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: rpmconf - tool to handle rpmnew and rpmsave files

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:30 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> I've been tired for some time of watching rpmnew and rpmsave files. I've 
> been looking for some tool, but did not find any, so I wrote my own.
> 
> http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rpmconf/rpmconf
> 
> Before I spend more times on this script, I would like to hear your 
> opinion. Do you find it useful? Did it already exists and I miss it in 
> my search?

http://learn.clemsonlinux.org/wiki/Gentoo:etc-update

That's etc-update, originates from Gentoo, and handles rpmnew/rpmsave
files (I think it just matches any filenames in /etc that look to be
variants of each other).

Mandriva has rather simple handling of these files in its graphical
package manager, rpmdrake:

http://svn.mandriva.com/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/soft/rpmdrake/trunk/Rpmdrake/rpmnew.pm?view=markup

it more or less just shows you a diff between the old and new configs,
and asks which you'd like to use. No editing / reconciliation is
possible. And it's in perl. =)

There may be others, but those are the ones that spring to mind.

(btw, if anyone's wondering why there's always a blank line above my sig
now, this appears to be a 'feature' of Evolution in Rawhide...it
includes a blank line before the separator in the signature block).

-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Adam Williamson  said:
> On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:01 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > Is there a benefit to running audit by default? Is it worth the cost?
> 
> ...and how does one disable it, so the people doing the benchmarks can
> confirm that's the cause?

At the command-line as root, "chkconfig auditd off" will disable it for
the next boot and "service auditd stop" will stop it for the running
system.

Note that there used to be an issue with stopping autitd where auditing
wasn't actually turned off (just the daemon catching the logging).  You
had to manually turn off auditing with IIRC "auditctl -e 0".  I don't
know if this has been addressed in newer versions.

For benchmarking, you'd probably be better off with disabling it with
chkconfig and doing a clean boot anyway.
-- 
Chris Adams 
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On 06/12/2009 08:14 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 12.06.2009, 05:34 +0200 schrieb Kevin Kofler:

>> I don't see what it buys our users if they get one big update over 2 small
>> ones. 
> 
> In most cases the biggest part (consuming time and cpu cycles) of the
> updates is not installing them but everything else like checking for new
> packages, downloading the metadata,

This portion of the list is saved.

> calculating dependencies,
> downloading the packages and running the transaction test. Especially
> for small updates this takes much more time than the actual "rpm -U"
> part.
> 

But this portion of your list is dependent on the size of the
transaction so it isn't going to halve the time to go from two small
updates to a single large update here.

-Toshio



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Rahul Sundaram]

On 06/12/2009 09:14 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:01 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 06/12/2009 06:42 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote:
>>
>>> It's almost certainly attributable to the default install using audit.
>>> Roland and various others have done a lot of work improving things, but
>>> there is always going to be a per-syscall overhead to this kind of
>>> thing. A few extra usec a syscall adds up after a few hundred thousand
>>> calls...
>>
>> Is there a benefit to running audit by default? Is it worth the cost?
> 
> ...and how does one disable it, so the people doing the benchmarks can
> confirm that's the cause?

service auditd stop and chkconfig auditd off if you want that to be
permanent.

Rahul

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:01 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 06/12/2009 06:42 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> 
> > It's almost certainly attributable to the default install using audit.
> > Roland and various others have done a lot of work improving things, but
> > there is always going to be a per-syscall overhead to this kind of
> > thing. A few extra usec a syscall adds up after a few hundred thousand
> > calls...
> 
> Is there a benefit to running audit by default? Is it worth the cost?

...and how does one disable it, so the people doing the benchmarks can
confirm that's the cause?

-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

[Kevin Kofler]

Christoph Wickert wrote:
> In most cases the biggest part (consuming time and cpu cycles) of the
> updates is not installing them but everything else like checking for new
> packages, downloading the metadata, calculating dependencies,
> downloading the packages and running the transaction test. Especially
> for small updates this takes much more time than the actual "rpm -U"
> part.

If you include just the urgent stuff in daily updates, those will still be
the same.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: GDM Language list...

[Bill Nottingham]

Jens Petersen (peter...@redhat.com) said: 
> - "Bill Nottingham"  wrote:
> > Well, there are languages we would support fine that don't have a
> > specific language-support group (most anything that uses a Latin-1
> > like
> > charset, and no specific input method.) Moreover, the groups that are
> > installed aren't actually recorded anywhere on the installed system.
> > (And having gdm attempt to discover/compute what groups are installed
> > is completely impractical.)
> 
> The YumLangpackPlugin Feature that I am planning to propose for F12 may help 
> with this providing langpack-support metapackages.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/YumLangpackPlugin

My one concern with this is that the conditional stuff is also used on
the compose side when making LiveCDs, etc.  We need to make sure that
still works somehow.

Bill

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Freitag, den 12.06.2009, 05:34 +0200 schrieb Kevin Kofler:
> Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > IMO this is something we should discuss on this list. We need to find a
> > fine balance between pushing updates in time to make maintainers happy
> > and not too many updates for the users. Maybe something like
> > security/urgent updates daily, everything else once or twice a week. But
> > this needs further discussion.
> 
> I don't see what it buys our users if they get one big update over 2 small
> ones. 

In most cases the biggest part (consuming time and cpu cycles) of the
updates is not installing them but everything else like checking for new
packages, downloading the metadata, calculating dependencies,
downloading the packages and running the transaction test. Especially
for small updates this takes much more time than the actual "rpm -U"
part.

> Plus, it'd require us to distinguish urgent vs. not urgent updates,
> and causes big issues with urgent updates accidentally depending on
> non-urgent ones. 

Good point. I did not think of that because my updates usually are at
the end of a dependency chain and if not, I put all packages that
require each other into one big update. Maintainers should be smart
enough to do it that way.
Of course it would cause problems for people waiting for other
packager's updates, but IMO this is no difference to the current
situation: If you don't ask rel-eng for a build root overwrite, you have
to wait until the dependencies are pushed before you can build you
packages.

Of course it would require some automatic dependency check from bodhi,
but this is something we should look at anyway as the recent vte update
shows.

Regards,
Christoph

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Eric Sandeen]

Adam Miller wrote:
> I have read a lot of people voice their opinion on what they think to be
> a flaw in the benchmark. How about we as a group put together a
> documented benchmark process along with justification as to why those
> methods were chosen to reflect "real world" scenarios and from there
> send it to reviewers such as phoronix along with making it public on the
> wiki or $other.
> 
> I just think we could try and make an improvement for future reviews as
> well as users who want to run benchmarks of their own.
> 
> Just a thought,
> -Adam


I agree, because Phoronix will continue in any case.  And they have set
up a framework which is easy to run and report from, and they have quite
a following it seems.  It'd be in our (and open source's) best interest,
I think, if we could help influence it in a positive direction.

Having an easy to run, repeatable, -relevant- benchmark suite could
actually help improve open source a lot, I think.  It's just that it's
so full of noise now, and often confusing, misleading, or wrong.

As other posters have said, there may be pushback at whittling down the
irrelevant tests, because that means fewer ad imprints.  But I bet that
if some of the experts in the systems being tested at least correct
flaws or methodology in the existing tests, they'd be accepted.

So having said that, maybe I should submit a patch for that infamous
bonnie++ problem.  ;)

-Eric

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: unable to include capability.h

[Bill Crawford]

Kyle McMartin wrote:
...

Someone else suggested including  first, which should work
around it. That's what GNU coreutils did... (a change in the include
ordering broke it.)


I'm surprised the man page for cap_get_flag etc don't show an include of 
 before  ... many system call man pages 
do e.g. --


NAME
   open, creat - open and possibly create a file or device

SYNOPSIS
   #include 
   #include 
   #include 

   int open(const char *pathname, int flags);
   int open(const char *pathname, int flags, mode_t mode);

   int creat(const char *pathname, mode_t mode);

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Kevin Kofler]

Casey Dahlin wrote:
> Because they gave us a bad grade and now we're butthurt and we're taking
> our ball and going home so there? Because that's what everyone's going to
> hear, even if its not what we say.

If they love hearing bullsh*t, they should just go use a distro for bullsh*t
lovers, like the one which is spitting out marketing bullsh*t all the time,
it's their loss.

People who actually have a brain will get our message.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

system-config-firewall picking up slack where firestarter fell off

[Adam Miller]

I'm retired firestarter, I picked it up recently as it was orphaned
but as we are moving towards PolicyKit and there's no upstream to
assist with the port and after a discussion we had here on the list I
decided it was time to retire it.

Now, with that being said, I have some users on the firestarter-users
mailing list that have some features they would like to request and I
wanted to pose a couple questions here in respect to their requests
and find out if others feel that these requests are feasible and/or
are even in the scope of system-config-firewall.

1) Cisco VPN
I don't use this myself but I was told it just needs these rules, so I
don't see a big issue here:
$IPT -A FORWARD -i $IF -o $INIF -p udp --dport 500 -m state --state
NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
$IPT -A FORWARD -i $IF -o $INIF -p tcp --dport 500 -m state --state
NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
$IPT -A FORWARD -i $IF -o $INIF -p 50 -m state --state
NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
$IPT -A FORWARD -i $INIF -o $IF -p 50 -m state --state
NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT

2) Auto setup of "Internet Sharing", so autoconfig of dhcpd and
providing a bridge between WAN and LAN. This is one that I'm not
entirely sure there is really in the scope of system-config-firewall
and might need to be its own utility.

Those are really the only two that have been reported to me, just
looking for advisement from the group before I go off and start trying
to hack something together.

Thanks,
-Adam

-- 
http://maxamillion.googlepages.com
-
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: unable to include capability.h

[Kyle McMartin]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 03:24:45PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Correct. I tried with different distro lenny, ubuntu 8.04, fedora 10,  
> opensuse 11 and I hadn't this problem.
>

It was a local Fedora patch that tickled it with recent kernels, Karsten
has sorted it out (but too late for Fedora 11 release... should be fixed
in updates?) Thanks for sorting it out Karsten.

* Mon Jun 08 2009 Karsten Hopp  2.16-3
- disable headerfix patch (#503927)

cheers, kyle

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Rahul Sundaram]

On 06/12/2009 06:42 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote:

> It's almost certainly attributable to the default install using audit.
> Roland and various others have done a lot of work improving things, but
> there is always going to be a per-syscall overhead to this kind of
> thing. A few extra usec a syscall adds up after a few hundred thousand
> calls...

Is there a benefit to running audit by default? Is it worth the cost?

Rahul

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Casey Dahlin]

On 06/12/2009 09:24 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Eric Springer wrote:
>> Especially  considering how many people will use these benchmarks to make
>> conclusions about Fedora, we should make sure it presents as best as it
>> can.
> 
> I think we should rather do an informative press campaign on the lines
> of "Why Phoronix benchmarks are utter bullsh*t".
> 
> Kevin Kofler
> 

Because they gave us a bad grade and now we're butthurt and we're taking our 
ball and going home so there? Because that's what everyone's going to hear, 
even if its not what we say.

--CJD

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Casey Dahlin]

On 06/12/2009 02:12 AM, Adam Miller wrote:
> I have read a lot of people voice their opinion on what they think to be
> a flaw in the benchmark. How about we as a group put together a
> documented benchmark process along with justification as to why those
> methods were chosen to reflect "real world" scenarios and from there
> send it to reviewers such as phoronix along with making it public on the
> wiki or $other.
> 
> I just think we could try and make an improvement for future reviews as
> well as users who want to run benchmarks of their own.
> 
> Just a thought,
> -Adam
> (From my G1)
>
And why don't we do this cooperatively with a few other distros so it doesn't 
look like we're Al Gore'ing

--CJD

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: unable to include capability.h

[Daniel Lezcano]

Kyle McMartin wrote:

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 03:02:39PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
  

Grumf ! that's annoying :(

Thank you very much for your quick answer ! :)

As I only need the CAP_SYS_BOOT, I will define it manually in the source  
code and will remove the include, that's ugly but anyway... :/


As I understood, the fix in the kernel conflicts with the workaround in  
userspace, right ?
I was wondering if I should notify this to the maintainer of the libcap  
or is it already known ?





Someone else suggested including  first, which should work
around it. That's what GNU coreutils did... (a change in the include
ordering broke it.)
  

Ah yes, I prefer this workaround, it is cleaner.
Thanks for the the trick, I tested it and that solved the issue.

Which release are you seeing this on... F-11?
  
Correct. I tried with different distro lenny, ubuntu 8.04, fedora 10, 
opensuse 11 and I hadn't this problem.


Thanks.
-- Daniel

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Some pulseaudio questions...

[Kyle McMartin]

On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 03:24:00AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-06-06 at 19:01 -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 12:51:02AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > What would be good to have would be a "swap niceness" value that could
> > > be attached to a processes or memory regions. i.e. some way to
> > > influence the swapping algorithm in a less binary way than just "swap
> > > this" or "don't swap this".
> 
> > I've been working on this along with some enhancements to make fadvise
> > more than utterly useless... hopefully will be ready for posting soon.
> 
> Main problem is proving its utility with actual benchmarks - witness the
> recent first class citizen VM patch thread.
> 

Nrgh, hate reply-to headers.

Anyway, this is not one of those 'subjective' things like tweaking
schedulers or pageout algorithms. It's about giving developers the
ability to control pageout and replacement policy.

For instance, if you're working on gvfs, and are copying a file
to a remote host, what are the odds that you want to waste 4GB of memory
caching the entireity of it? Almost zero. If it's a video, you may want
to keep the first, say, 5%, and then recycle another 5% as a window
while you copy. (The first 5% in case the user decides to play it.)

If you're running a large webserver, say, mirrors.kernel.org, you may
want your most-commonly-accessed files to stay in page cache. You
wouldn't want someone downloading a whole bunch of ancient kernels to
cause 2.6.30 to get evicted... Providing this control is important,
because it's impossible to do one-size-fits-all without hints.

Rik's VM patches that make the replacement policy tend towards not
evicting executable pages help a lot in this regard in a fairly obvious
way.

Anyway, we're well out of the realm of relevance to f-devel. Feel free
to ping me off-list about it if you'd like.

Kyle

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Kevin Kofler]

Eric Springer wrote:
> Especially  considering how many people will use these benchmarks to make
> conclusions about Fedora, we should make sure it presents as best as it
> can.

I think we should rather do an informative press campaign on the lines
of "Why Phoronix benchmarks are utter bullsh*t".

Kevin Kofler

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

How user could loose his "CLA done" status?

[Peter Lemenkov]

Hello All!
There is a newbie fedora packager, whom I sponsored not so long time
ago - he seems very active and enthusiastic, and almost every day he
asks me some advice on his (still not included into Fedora) package.

Today, I was badly surprised to see that he lost his "CLA done" status
- I asked him, what's happens? Maybe he is just gave up or this is
(possibly) his technical issue? But he swears that he didn't do
anything destructive with his account so far. The only suspicious
issue, is that he has some troubles with firefox - it refuses to
remember his login and password for Fedora  and he frequently uses
"forgot my password" feature.

Can someone check the status of this issue (whether it's a user's
mistake or infrastructure bug)? User - aleksey2005

-- 
With best regards!

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
>> No.  It simply is not possible.  See my (and Luke's) email on how long
>> a single push takes.
>
> Seth says the 22-hour run is a bug. If a run can be done in ~8 hours, that
> means an automated update procedure could do about 3 per day.

Theoretically, yes.  In reality, probably not.  At least not until we
get some of the other items in place that would even make this
remotely possible.  Also, we need to fix the failure paths, which make
things indeterminably slower.

> But of course, if it takes one day, then let's do one per day. I'm not
> asking for the impossible. ;-)

I WAS doing one a day.  In fact, until a week ago I was doing them as
often as possible.  I plan to pick that back up on Monday, as I'm only
able to be online for about 5 min at a time until then.

josh

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[James Hubbard]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> IOW: a lot of those phoronix articles that contain benchmarks could be
> half as long or even shorter if you rip out the results that are of no
> value and replace them by "No unexpected side effects could be found
> when running tests foo, bar, baz, foobar, ...; We thus didn't publish
> the results to not confuse and bore you".

You mean like clicking the link to the last page and reading the
summary there? I do that for every review that I read. I always read
the summary at the end after getting through the introductory
material.   I don't even look at the graphs unless they mention some
issue at the end.  The better sites don't require you to read the all
of material between the beginning and the end of a review.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

[Kevin Kofler]

Josh Boyer wrote:
> No.  It simply is not possible.  See my (and Luke's) email on how long
> a single push takes.

Seth says the 22-hour run is a bug. If a run can be done in ~8 hours, that
means an automated update procedure could do about 3 per day.

But of course, if it takes one day, then let's do one per day. I'm not
asking for the impossible. ;-)

Kevin Kofler

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Kyle McMartin]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 03:03:58PM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> Nice find!
>
> Maybe we can run the "real world test suite" ("benchmark") before the 
> next release and try to straighten out such odds.
>
> Most of the benchmark results they post are not showing scientific 
> results, only when something is really odd, like here, they have their 
> use.
>

It's almost certainly attributable to the default install using audit.
Roland and various others have done a lot of work improving things, but
there is always going to be a per-syscall overhead to this kind of
thing. A few extra usec a syscall adds up after a few hundred thousand
calls...

regards, Kyle

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: unable to include capability.h

[Kyle McMartin]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 03:02:39PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Grumf ! that's annoying :(
>
> Thank you very much for your quick answer ! :)
>
> As I only need the CAP_SYS_BOOT, I will define it manually in the source  
> code and will remove the include, that's ugly but anyway... :/
>
> As I understood, the fix in the kernel conflicts with the workaround in  
> userspace, right ?
> I was wondering if I should notify this to the maintainer of the libcap  
> or is it already known ?
>

Someone else suggested including  first, which should work
around it. That's what GNU coreutils did... (a change in the include
ordering broke it.)

Which release are you seeing this on... F-11?

cheers, Kyle

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

[Seth Vidal]

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Luke Macken wrote:


On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 08:54:19PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Christoph
Wickert wrote:

need it because things need to be predictable for package maintainers.
Some updates are processed after a day, others not for two weeks.


I'm a bit confused where your date is coming from.  2 weeks seems
wrong lately.  In fact, since I took over the push stuff, it's
normally done daily or as often as the composes allow.  Right now, the
compose for f11-updates alone is 7-8 hours, so doing it daily often
just doesn't work out.  But 2 weeks seems wrong.


Actually, mashing f11-updates last week took 11 hours.

The entire push took about 22.


seems like that is a creating prestodelta.xml bug that we're working on 
now.


-sv

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Harald Hoyer]

On 06/11/2009 10:41 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:

Eric Sandeen wrote:


I don't know much about apache but I bet a default ./configure winds up
with different builds depending on the build environment, which in this
case is probably dictated by whatever the default generic OS intall
contains.

And this is useful how?  Geez.

Me, I'd rather know how -Fedora's- httpd fares against -Ubuntu's- httpd,
but maybe I'm just nuts.


I did *basic* ebizzy[1] tests on f10/f11, and f11 is 1/2 worse.
To compare run also against je[2], it is FreeBSD malloc.


...

Nice find!

Maybe we can run the "real world test suite" ("benchmark") before the next 
release and try to straighten out such odds.


Most of the benchmark results they post are not showing scientific results, only 
when something is really odd, like here, they have their use.


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: unable to include capability.h

[Daniel Lezcano]

Kyle McMartin wrote:

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 01:48:15PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
  

In file included from /usr/include/sys/capability.h:23,
from myinclude.c:1:
/usr/include/stdint.h:41: error: conflicting types for ?int64_t?
/usr/include/linux/types.h:98: note: previous declaration of ?int64_t?  
was here

/usr/include/stdint.h:56: error: conflicting types for ?uint64_t?
/usr/include/linux/types.h:96: note: previous declaration of ?uint64_t?  
was here

make: *** [myinclude] Error 1




 is /still/ broken. there was a bug filed against the
kernel, but the problem is actually the userspace header, which 'cheats'
the preprocessor rather badly:

#include 
#include 

/*
 * Make sure we can be included from userland by preventing
 * capability.h from including other kernel headers
 */
#define _LINUX_TYPES_H
#define _LINUX_FS_H
#define __LINUX_COMPILER_H
#define __user

typedef unsigned int __u32;
typedef __u32 __le32;

#include 
  


Grumf ! that's annoying :(

Thank you very much for your quick answer ! :)

As I only need the CAP_SYS_BOOT, I will define it manually in the source 
code and will remove the include, that's ugly but anyway... :/


As I understood, the fix in the kernel conflicts with the workaround in 
userspace, right ?
I was wondering if I should notify this to the maintainer of the libcap 
or is it already known ?


Thanks
 -- Daniel

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Fedora rawhide rebuild in mock status 2009-06-08 x86_64

[Richard W.M. Jones]

All the packages with my name against them should be fixed now.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat  http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
Fedora now supports 75 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#)
http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

rpmconf - tool to handle rpmnew and rpmsave files

[Miroslav Suchý]

I've been tired for some time of watching rpmnew and rpmsave files. I've 
been looking for some tool, but did not find any, so I wrote my own.


http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rpmconf/rpmconf

Before I spend more times on this script, I would like to hear your 
opinion. Do you find it useful? Did it already exists and I miss it in 
my search? Do you see any bugs there?


What it does:
- run "rpmconf --help" and you will see :)
- it search all config file of all installed packages and check if file 
with .rpmsave or .rpmnew exists.

- It allows you to see diff of this file against current file.
- It allows you to keep current version or the other one (rpmsave or 
rpmnew one).

- it deletes .rpmsave and .rpmnew files which are identical to current file
- after your choice it deletes the unwanted file.

And what it does not do:
- it do not delete anything. At least until you comment out DEBUG 
variable on begging of script.
- it does not search for *all* rpmsave and rpmnew files. It only search 
for installed configuration files. If package has been uninstalled and 
rpmsave has been left behind, then I do not care. If rpmsave or rpmnew 
has been created in past and now the config file is not presented in 
package any more, then I do not care too.


And before you comment out DEBUG variable, obvious question. Do you have 
backups? :)


--
Miroslav Suchy
Red Hat Satellite Engineering

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 12.06.2009 13:33, Christoph Höger wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 12.06.2009, 19:55 +1000 schrieb Eric Springer:
>> 2009/6/12 Christoph Höger :
>>> Could you explain why mp3 (or ogg) encoding is not a "real world"
>>> benchmark? I do this quite often.
>> Because they are comparing file system on what is a CPU bound test. Notice
>> how all the file systems perform the same.
> 
> That was their conclusion, too: Anyone who wants fastest possible
> encoding can use any filesystem.  But it has to be measured, as the
> difference in ogg encoding shows. 
> That's what makes up "Real World" tests IMO: To test even side effects
> no one would ever really think of. As in "real world" you will probably
> store your encoded files on your filesystem it is good to see that there
> are no regressions.

Doing such "Real World" test to find unexpected side effects is a good
thing in a lot of cases. But you don't have to publish the results on
hundreds of pages if the results are as expected and hence uninteresting.

IOW: a lot of those phoronix articles that contain benchmarks could be
half as long or even shorter if you rip out the results that are of no
value and replace them by "No unexpected side effects could be found
when running tests foo, bar, baz, foobar, ...; We thus didn't publish
the results to not confuse and bore you".

Professional, printed computer magazine do things like that -- they have
to, because their space is quite limited. But that's not the case on the
web, where the methods to raise money make things even worse.

Cu
knurd


-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: unable to include capability.h

[Ondřej Vašík]

Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 01:48:15PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > Is there a trick for that or is it a bug ?
> 
> Adding  #include   seems to fix it, so I reckon its a bug in
> libcap-devel's header files.

Actually already reported and closed rawhide, so it should be fixed
there...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483548


Greetings,
 Ondřej Vašík


signature.asc
Description: Toto je digitálně	 podepsaná část	 zprávy
-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: unable to include capability.h

[Kyle McMartin]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 01:48:15PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> In file included from /usr/include/sys/capability.h:23,
> from myinclude.c:1:
> /usr/include/stdint.h:41: error: conflicting types for ?int64_t?
> /usr/include/linux/types.h:98: note: previous declaration of ?int64_t?  
> was here
> /usr/include/stdint.h:56: error: conflicting types for ?uint64_t?
> /usr/include/linux/types.h:96: note: previous declaration of ?uint64_t?  
> was here
> make: *** [myinclude] Error 1
>

 is /still/ broken. there was a bug filed against the
kernel, but the problem is actually the userspace header, which 'cheats'
the preprocessor rather badly:

#include 
#include 

/*
 * Make sure we can be included from userland by preventing
 * capability.h from including other kernel headers
 */
#define _LINUX_TYPES_H
#define _LINUX_FS_H
#define __LINUX_COMPILER_H
#define __user

typedef unsigned int __u32;
typedef __u32 __le32;

#include 

nasty...

cheers, kyle

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: unable to include capability.h

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 01:48:15PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I hope this is the right mailing list ...
> 
> I installed a f11 and tried to compile a simple program:
> 
> #include 
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> return 0;
> }
> 
> But the compilation fails with the error:
> 
> In file included from /usr/include/sys/capability.h:23,
> from myinclude.c:1:
> /usr/include/stdint.h:41: error: conflicting types for ?int64_t?
> /usr/include/linux/types.h:98: note: previous declaration of ?int64_t? 
> was here
> /usr/include/stdint.h:56: error: conflicting types for ?uint64_t?
> /usr/include/linux/types.h:96: note: previous declaration of ?uint64_t? 
> was here
> make: *** [myinclude] Error 1
> 
> Is there a trick for that or is it a bug ?

Adding  #include   seems to fix it, so I reckon its a bug in
libcap-devel's header files.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London   -o-   http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o-  http://virt-manager.org  -o-  http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org   -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505  -o-  F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: unable to include capability.h

[Jussi Lehtola]

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 13:48 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I hope this is the right mailing list ...

No, it is not. The right one is fedora-list, this one is for development
of Fedora.
-- 
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussileht...@fedoraproject.org

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

[Josh Boyer]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> IMO this is something we should discuss on this list. We need to find a
>> fine balance between pushing updates in time to make maintainers happy
>> and not too many updates for the users. Maybe something like
>> security/urgent updates daily, everything else once or twice a week. But
>> this needs further discussion.
>
> I don't see what it buys our users if they get one big update over 2 small
> ones. Plus, it'd require us to distinguish urgent vs. not urgent updates,
> and causes big issues with urgent updates accidentally depending on
> non-urgent ones. We should just push updates as frequently as possible,

Yes.  The deps are a concern.

> nobody forces our users to check for updates daily if they don't want to
> update that often. I personally have KPackageKit configured to check for
> updates hourly and I'd be happy with several pushes a day.


No.  It simply is not possible.  See my (and Luke's) email on how long
a single push takes.

josh

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

unable to include capability.h

[Daniel Lezcano]

Hi,

I hope this is the right mailing list ...

I installed a f11 and tried to compile a simple program:

#include 
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
return 0;
}

But the compilation fails with the error:

In file included from /usr/include/sys/capability.h:23,
from myinclude.c:1:
/usr/include/stdint.h:41: error: conflicting types for ‘int64_t’
/usr/include/linux/types.h:98: note: previous declaration of ‘int64_t’ 
was here

/usr/include/stdint.h:56: error: conflicting types for ‘uint64_t’
/usr/include/linux/types.h:96: note: previous declaration of ‘uint64_t’ 
was here

make: *** [myinclude] Error 1

Is there a trick for that or is it a bug ?

Thanks in advance
-- Daniel

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Fedora PPC console=? to get serial console

[James Laska]

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 10:59 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 01:34:25PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Richard W.M. Jones 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > (Posting here because the fedora-ppc list is a bit overrun with spam
> > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/fedora-ppc/ )
> > >
> > > Does anyone know what 'console=...' parameter I should give the Fedora
> > > PPC kernel to get it to use a serial console?
> > >
> > > Debian uses the non-standard form console=ttyPZ0
> > 
> > That is for the special G5 serial cards I believe.
> > 
> > > I've also seen console=hvc0 mentioned.  Obviously I also tried
> > > console=ttyS0.
> > 
> > hvc0 is for machines like POWER4/5/6 and possibly a couple others.
> 
> hvc0 is a virtual console device. As well as some PPC machines, its used
> for Xen paravirt console, and KVM's virtio console device, and possibly
> s390 too IIRC

Along with console=hvc0 for ppc blades and virtual ppc systems, I use
console=hvsi0 on some bare metal Power5 ppc64 systems.

Thanks,
James


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Christoph Höger]

Am Freitag, den 12.06.2009, 19:55 +1000 schrieb Eric Springer:
> 2009/6/12 Christoph Höger :
> > Could you explain why mp3 (or ogg) encoding is not a "real world"
> > benchmark? I do this quite often.
> 
> Because they are comparing file system on what is a CPU bound test. Notice
> how all the file systems perform the same.

That was their conclusion, too: Anyone who wants fastest possible
encoding can use any filesystem.  But it has to be measured, as the
difference in ogg encoding shows. 
That's what makes up "Real World" tests IMO: To test even side effects
no one would ever really think of. As in "real world" you will probably
store your encoded files on your filesystem it is good to see that there
are no regressions.


signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Fedora rawhide rebuild in mock status 2009-06-08 i386

[Nils Philippsen]

On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 17:07 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
> Fedora Rawhide-in-Mock Build Results for i386
> using the first rawhide of the Fedora 12 development cycle, cut on 6/8/2008.
> 
> Full logs at http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/
...
> sane-frontends-1.0.14-6.fc11 (build/make) nphilipp
...

Doesn't seem to be a problem in the package:

from
http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results/i386/sane-frontends-1.0.14-6.fc11.src.rpm/result/root.log
 :

INFO backend.py:612:  Mock Version: 0.9.16
DEBUG backend.py:185:  rootdir = 
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386-sane-frontends-1.0.14-6.fc11.src.rpm/root/
DEBUG backend.py:186:  resultdir = 
/home/build/mock-results/i386/sane-frontends-1.0.14-6.fc11.src.rpm/result/
DEBUG util.py:57:  ensuring that dir exists: 
/var/cache/mock/fedora-development-i386/root_cache/
DEBUG util.py:280:  Executing command: ['tar', 'xzf', 
'/var/cache/mock/fedora-development-i386/root_cache/cache.tar.gz', '-C', 
'/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386-sane-frontends-1.0.14-6.fc11.src.rpm/root/']
DEBUG util.py:256:  gzip: stdin: invalid compressed data--crc error
DEBUG util.py:256:  tar: Child returned status 1
DEBUG util.py:256:  tar: Exiting with failure status due to previous errors
DEBUG util.py:319:  Child returncode was: 2
DEBUG util.py:78:  remove tree: 
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386-sane-frontends-1.0.14-6.fc11.src.rpm
DEBUG util.py:98:  kill orphans

Nils
-- 
Nils Philippsen  "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase 
Red Hat   a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty
n...@redhat.com   nor Safety."  --  Benjamin Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint:  C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F  656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Fedora PPC console=? to get serial console

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 01:34:25PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> > (Posting here because the fedora-ppc list is a bit overrun with spam
> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/fedora-ppc/ )
> >
> > Does anyone know what 'console=...' parameter I should give the Fedora
> > PPC kernel to get it to use a serial console?
> >
> > Debian uses the non-standard form console=ttyPZ0
> 
> That is for the special G5 serial cards I believe.
> 
> > I've also seen console=hvc0 mentioned.  Obviously I also tried
> > console=ttyS0.
> 
> hvc0 is for machines like POWER4/5/6 and possibly a couple others.

hvc0 is a virtual console device. As well as some PPC machines, its used
for Xen paravirt console, and KVM's virtio console device, and possibly
s390 too IIRC

Daniel
-- 
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London   -o-   http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o-  http://virt-manager.org  -o-  http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org   -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505  -o-  F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[Eric Springer]

2009/6/12 Christoph Höger :
> Could you explain why mp3 (or ogg) encoding is not a "real world"
> benchmark? I do this quite often.

Because they are comparing file system on what is a CPU bound test. Notice
how all the file systems perform the same.


I agree with the sentiment that phoronix reviews are lazy, poor, etc -- but
that doesn't mean nothing is revealed by them. Especially  considering how many
people will use these benchmarks to make conclusions about Fedora, we
should make
sure it presents as best as it can. So I think it is important to
establish why our apache
result were so poor and what can be done to fix it.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list